Below is my column in The Messenger on the renewed effort of Special Counsel Jack Smith to gag former President Donald Trump. At the same time, Judge Arthur Engoron has repeatedly fined Trump for his public statements about the New York fraud case. Engoron declared this week “Anybody can run for president. I am going to protect my staff.”
There is widespread support for barring attacks on court staff and Trump did attack the Court’s clerk in a prior posting. However, most of his comments have been directed at Engoron and his alleged hostility toward Trump. Where to draw this line is the subject of this column. In my view, criticism of the case, the court, and the prosecutor should be treated as protected speech.
Here is the column:
In 2016, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion overturning a conviction that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had seemed willing to secure at whatever cost to the rule of law. The case involved the prosecution of former governor Bob McDonnell (R-Va.), and the lead DOJ prosecutor was now-special counsel Jack Smith. The court dismissed the “tawdry tales” offered by the DOJ and declared that it was far more concerned with the damage that Smith was causing to the legal system with his virtually limitless interpretation of criminality.
The rebuke came to mind this week as Smith continued his unrelenting effort to gag former president Donald Trump before the 2024 election. Some of us have previously denounced the gag order issued by U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan as unconstitutional, but even that order was more limited than what Smith had demanded.
Even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a leading critic of Trump, has come out against Smith’s efforts as an attack on the First Amendment.
Undeterred, Smith now wants to reinstate and expand the gag on Trump, citing Trump’s comments about his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who reportedly has been given an immunity deal by Smith. (Meadows’ lawyer disputes those reports.)
Smith wants to bar Trump from criticizing any witnesses as well as the prosecution and the court. That would include criticisms of former Vice President Mike Pence, currently one of his opponents for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, on his allegations linked to the earlier election.[Update: after this column ran, Pence withdrew from the presidential campaign]
Of course, gagging Trump will not materially affect the jury pool in the case. The Smith prosecutions are one of the biggest issues in this election. Moreover, it will not protect potential witnesses from withering criticism in the middle of an election that could turn on the public view of these cases.
Indeed, Smith has insisted on trying Trump before the election but now also wants to prevent him from speaking fully about the case before the election. Trump alone would be gagged, even as other politicians and pundits debate the merits of the cases and the countervailing allegations of the weaponization of the criminal justice system.
The prior order issued by Judge Chutkan is shockingly vague and overbroad. It bars Trump from “targeting” Smith or his staff or potential witnesses or the “substance of their testimony.” It leaves an undefined and uncertain line as Trump campaigns on what he (and millions of citizens) view as the abuse of the criminal justice system to target President Biden’s main political opponent.
Smith would add to the scope and ambiguity of the order in his latest motion. He is arguing that the court should “modify the defendant’s conditions of release … by clarifying that the existing condition barring communication with witnesses about the facts of the case includes indirect messages to witnesses made publicly on social media or in speeches.”
Consider that for a moment: Smith would treat comments about witnesses, such as Meadows or Pence, as an effort to communicate with a witness.
Thus, Smith continues to litigate with a sense of utter abandon, showing his signature lack of concern for the implications of his legal arguments. It is the type of blind purpose that leads — as it did in the McDonnell case — to a unanimous ruling against you on an otherwise divided Supreme Court.
Ironically, it calls for a level of self-restraint that the trial court itself failed to show in the past. In sentencing a rioter in 2022, Judge Chutkan said that January 6 defendants “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution.” She added that it was “a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.”
Despite clearly indicating with her comment that she believed Trump should be jailed (long before he was indicted), Chutkan has refused to recuse herself in this trial.
The lack of restraint shown by Smith only magnifies the lack of leadership from Attorney General Merrick Garland. The attorney general has repeatedly said that he would give the special counsel full authority and independence. However, that would not ordinarily mean that the attorney general would reduce himself to a mere pedestrian in this process.
This is an example of the ever-shrinking profile of Garland at the Justice Department. He has often told Congress that his knowledge of controversies is limited to what he has read in press accounts. Even beyond the special counsel’s investigations, he seems as proactive as a ficus plant.
Yet, this new gag motion presents a far more serious cost to Garland’s passive role at the department. Smith is taking a hatchet to the First Amendment in these motions. In doing so, he is fueling anger over the perception of a weaponized criminal justice system.
Smith’s deafening attacks on free speech are matched equally by Garland’s utter silence. The attorney general seems to believe that removing himself entirely from these investigations is more important than guaranteeing that his department does not become the enemy of core constitutional rights.
As Smith seems intent on inviting another unanimous Supreme Court opinion against his department, Garland may want to consider voicing a modicum of concern over the cost to free speech in Smith’s efforts to gag Donald Trump.
Jonathan Turley, an attorney, constitutional law scholar and legal analyst, is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School.
OT, the actual cost to fuel an electric vehicle is over $17/gallon, when things like taxpayer subsidies are figured in. Not to mention the huge cost to the earth to manufacture EV batteries and dispose of them at the end of their lifecycle.
“It’s the [collectivism], stupid!”
– James Carville
__________________
“Say goodbye to EVs” – that paraphrase from the new Toyota CEO.
It’s not the cars, it’s the collectivism.
The Enviro-Wacko “Green War” is a phantom psy-op, brainwashing, and communist indoctrination; it’s not real, it’s advocacy and a promotion for collectivism, aka communism.
The climate has changed from cold to warm and back again for going-on 14 billion years.
The earth and its climate have certainly changed; the earth wasn’t even here 14 billion years ago when the climate started from scratch.
Enviro-Wackos are frauds and liars as proven at East Anglia.
________________________________________________________________
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker. Who’s to blame for Climategate?
A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term “Climategate” to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed. The reason why even the Guardian’s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC’s key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it. Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history. Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement. Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case. The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC’s scientific elite, including not just the “Hockey Team”, such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC’s 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore’s ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself. There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt’s blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws. They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based. This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones’s refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got “lost”. Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.
– The Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
That article is an absurdity. There is no cost “to the earth” of mining minerals of manufacturing batteries. (EV Batteries are almost totally recyclable, with Lithium capable of being used again and again in new batteries). All of the metals are recyclable. And even the plastics are salvaged.
The claims are absurd and without any reasonable foundation at all.
$17 per gallon
That’s the EV equivalency.
That’s the fact. That’s the truth. That’s the message.
You don’t say how many miles per gallon.
It makes no sense to talk about a cost in dollars per gallon when the “fuel” is not measured in volume. Why don’t you tell us the cost per mile?
Ugh, why are people so dense. Of course electricity does not come in gallons. The point is that the cost to everyone, taxpayer included, is the equivalent of if the driver were paying $17/gallon. The drivers don’t pay that because they rely on the taxpayer to pay there rest, so they can virtue signal.
Where is that cost to taxpayers generated? It must be a recurrent cost, like gas, for your analogy to work. For example, are you saying that taxpayers are subsidizing the cost of the electricity to that great an extent?
As appealing as it may be a judge’s powers do not include restricting the free speech of others – even to protect his staff, or further still witnesses and the jury.
If a party to a trial defames others outside the courtroom – those parties can file defamation claims – and that includes court clerks.
Regardlss we are ALWAYS free to criticize government and those in government.
Frankly I think Trump is baiting Smith, DOJ and the judges in his causes – and they are stupidly taking the bait.
But then they set themselves up when they prosecuted non-crimes.
Judges are near universally arrogant and used to excercising near limitless power. This is WRONG and it has ALWAYS been WRONG.
What is different about the Trump cases is that arrogance is being exposed for what it is in public.
Prof. Turley is noting that these prosecutors, and judges should restrain themselves.
It is the prosecution and the judge who MUST ‘gag” their speach – not the defense. Not in the Trump case, not in any case.
Regardless, Trump is in court on weak and politicaly driven charges with openly biased prosecutors and judges.
And he has the good fortune to have enough money and a high enough public profile to go toe to toe with them in a game of Chicken and WIN.
The advice Turley has given Smith James, etc. is wise. But it will not and can not be followed. If these courts, these judges, these prosecutors cared about the law rather than politics – these cases never would have been brought. Trump holds all the cards, and the judges, prosecutors, DOJ etc. have overplayed their hands.
Fining Trump is dirt cheap political publicity.
Escalating the fines – helps Trump even more and increases the odds of reversal in higher courts.
Little could empower Trump and his base MORE than actually jailing Trump.
Trump wins if the courts are stupid enough to make him a martyr.
Though frankly he wins regardless.
The politics of the MacDonald Case are miniscule compared to these cases.
The overwhelming impression that these prosecutions are political damages the credibility of the judges, and the prosecutors.
In the event one of these prosecutions manages to succeed – the conduct of the prosecutors and the courts radically increases the odds of quick reversal on appeal.
Trump is playing a game of chicken not just with Smith but all these prosecutors and judges. He is daring them to keep escalating their lawless and unconstitutional conduct. and he is doing so under circumstance where he wins regardless of the outcome.
While Turley’s advice to Smith and the courts is wise. It is not going to be taken. These people are incapable are so marinated in TDS that they do not realize they have flown into a box canyon and have no way out.
I am personally hopeful that these idiots are suckered in. My hope is that their conduct escalates in egregiousness sufficiently that we not only get 9-0 slapdown but that we get Good First amendment law.
My perfect outcome would be – limitations on the expression of a defendant and their lawyer in courts is unconstitutional. That the only remedies for speech in any context are defamation and the separate prosecution of actually criminal speech.
I doubt we will get that.
I do NOT beleive there should be a separate first amendment standard for political expression – nor for religious expression.
The first amendment should be near absolute for ANY speech – not just political or religious expression.
Judges believe they are g-ds. Orin Hatch said that as he warned a fresh batch of nominees to remember from whence they came. It did no good. Omne filthy punk he addressed captured his seat through Pennsylvania’s corrupt federal judicial nominating commission.
These criminals are slick. Senators hand pick the commissioners, including their relatives who practice law in the same jurisdiction in which their nominees will become full fledged federal judges, if daddy approves. Then, once sworn in for life, they park their behinds smack dab in front of those oh so kind lawyers who nominated them. Those “commissioned” lawyers go on to advertise themselves as the most successful lawyers–in terms of the dollar amounts they win for their clients–in the country. Thanks Arlen.
The judicial branch is not sacrosanct, above the law, omnipotent, or above general criticism or legal refutation.
Working within the law means, in this case, that the court must allow, live with, and find a “workaround” for, speech, criticism, and refutation.
Justice in America could not possibly be made worse by allowing constitutionally protected free speech.
If the totally corrupt judicial branch wants to do something positive for American justice, it should end conservative guilt by venue or venue corruption.
The judicial branch should have changed John “Dudley Do-Right” Durham’s very unspecial prosecutions to Hayden, Idaho.
Real President Donald J. Trump should have never been charged and should be tried in Alabama or Montana.
Trump is the former President, not the “real” President.
We don’t HAVE a real president today.
Whether you like it or not, Biden is the real President today.
Regardlss we are ALWAYS free to criticize government and those in government.
Yea, and judges are always granted immunity when they throw an innocent truth telling ass in stir.
These people are ABUSING their power, arresting and targeting their political enemies, intentionally destroying our democracy and the rule of law.
Merrick Garland should be impeached and removed.
These judges, DAs, prosecutors should all be removed and disbarred.
These people are ideologically deranged lunatics.
That judge Enogran LOOKS deranged.
There is something wrong with Garland, clearly the man is deranged.
The DAs are clearly deranged.
There should be NO case in the first place.
There should be NO trial. There should be NO jury that will almost certainly convict Trump.
Trump Derangement is a REAL psychiatric illness — as evidenced by how deranged ALL of these people abusing their power actually are. And by how deranged the media and so-called journalist all are. They are all in on it. Deranged leftists: For the Revolution above all.
Then we have Biden’s deranged foreign policy that is destabilizing the entire world, a world that is now teetering on the edge of nuclear war. Biden’s entire foreign policy team of Blinken, Sullivan and the rest are ALL deranged, dangerously incompetent fools.
The entire Democrat Party is full of deranged, democracy-destroying, America-hating, intolerant, immoral, psychos and communists who should never EVER again be anywhere near power over anyone or anything.
VOTE TRUMP 2024.
Biden is deranged.
Kamala is a fool.
Blinken is a fool.
Sullivan is a fool.
Garland is deranged.
Mayorkas is deranged.
Wray is corrupt.
The rest of them are dangerous incompetents.
There is not ONE sane or competent person in the Biden regime. Not one.
It’s the forcibly imposed “dictatorship of the hired help” of “Crazy Abe” Lincoln and his fellow traveler Karl Marx, which has been incrementally implemented since 1860.
The republic given to Americans by Ben Franklin et al. was to be homogeneous and severely restricted by immigration, religion, and vote.
Most certainly, the clear and evident, fiercely oppositional, existential religious threat, nay enemy, was not to be allowed into the “melting pot” of Europeans that enjoyed freedom within the Judaeo-Christian religious sects.
Saudi Arabia would never allow the infidel Judaeo-Christians to befoul or seize Mecca, wouldn’t you agree?
yes I agree….
and this is precisely why just last year, the most popular name for baby boys in GALWAY, Ireland was…..
MOHAMMED.
“Although the name Muhammad was most favoured as a baby boys’ name in Galway city, it placed 86th overall nationally.”
You sound deranged.
“At every step of this deranged foreign policy nightmare…”
____________________________
“At every step of this deranged foreign policy nightmare, perpetrated by the richest and most powerful state on earth, Sullivan has been feted unironicaly by the Washington foreign policy establishment as a wunderkind—the best and the brightest….”
“Jake Sullivan’s rise, and the avalanche of bien pensant flattery that has validated disaster after disaster, contrary to every real-world indicator, as marks of genius, is as sure a sign as any that the United States is once again ruled by a vain and arrogant aristocracy that prizes credentials over experience, and prestige over integrity, and which spends its days endlessly gratifying each other. The resulting stench will not soon be forgotten, especially by the people of Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Israel, and other nations, and American servicemen and women, who have already paid for the horrifically bad judgment of American commanders-in-chief, and of their high-class servants, with their blood.”
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/george-kennan-who-wasnt-jake-sullivan
“….which spends its days endlessly gratifying each other.
The resulting stench will not soon be forgotten…
especially by the people of Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Israel, and other nations, and American servicemen and women, who have already paid for the HORRIFICALLY BAD JUDGMENT of American commanders-in-chief, and of their high-class servants, with their blood.”
——————————————————————-
—> The ONLY president to NOT start another endless war?
And to preside over PEACE breaking out all over the Middle East?
And to be nominated numerous times for the Nobel Peace Prize for ACTUALLY achieving PEACE?
—-> President Donald J. Trump.
“There would have been no war in Ukraine or Israel if Donald Trump were President – and everyone knows this is true.”
@RichardGrenell
Chill out.
While I fully agree with you – most people are not stupid. But THESE people are.
We have a unique circumstance – where the massive abuse of power is taking place out in the open for all to see.
Those targeting Trump beleived that what they were doing would undermine his support. They FAILED to grasp that their prior bad conduct had destroyed trust in government trust in them.
They are failing and Trump’s polling goes up with each egregious misstep – because they have destroyed public trust.
Engron, Chutkan, Willis, James Smith can do as they please – everything they do proves to be self harm and to Trump’s benefit.
Turley is right about what these people SHOULD do. But they are not going to. They are playing chicken and they are so arrogant they do not grasp they hold a losing hand.
So LET THEM.
Trump has one and only one risk in all of this – and that is that conduct that absolutely shocks his supporters is exposed. If that was going to happen – it already would have come to light. This is NOT the biden case where the relentless drip drip drip slowly destroys him.
This is more like the collusion delusion, where each new revelation is sufficiently weak that our trust in government is undermined.
The longer all this goes on the worse it is for these Judges, These prosecutors, Garland and the DOJ, and Biden.
US inflation and the war in Ukrain assured increases in violence throughout the world – hgiher food prices always make for global instability.
But I did not see this war with Hamas coming.
That is the worst possible outcome for Biden.
It again constrasts him with Trump.
It puts him in an unstainable position with portions of his own base.
There is absolutely no possible circumstance in which the US is not going to support Israel in this conflict.
All the reasons do not need to be listed. But 85% of americans support Israel
At the same time this is close to 50 50 among those under 30. By supporting Israel Biden is destroying a large element of support in his own base.
Those under 30 have always voted democrat. But historically they do not vote. Biden and Obama have mostly succeeded in getting them to vote.
But Biden is on the wrong side of the Palestinian issue for them. If only 10% choose to go back to not voting – Biden is toast.
In issue after issue – Biden’s support is waning, and Trumps is rising.
Trump has a record to compare to Biden. Trump’s record is not changing. To a large extent people do not care what Trump says – they KNOW what they will be getting.
Conversley Biden has a record that is bad, and the oportunity to make it better or worse. But he can not improve his record without alienating his base. And if he does not improve his record he alienates the center.
Democrats have jumped the shark so many times that they have no credibility left.
Peopel are paying attention to these trials – but not in a way good for democrats.
The prosecutors, judges, DOJ, garland have lost the benefit of the doubt, they have lost the presumpiton of trust and legitimacy.
Only the true beleivers on the left are blind to this nonsense.
I hope they keep this up.
How will Real President Donald J. Trump ever stand up to She Gin Pink, Rootin’ Tootin’ Putin, and the Aye Aya Atol Ughs if he can’t stand up to Jack “The Hatchet Man” Smith and the summa cum indignous “Ug” Sisters (last name’s Lee), including the “Fakin’ Jamaican Affirmative Action Project,” Jessie Jackson’s “Hymietown” Lawyerett, and Little Missy “The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia,” a deranged and unbalanced State wherein the legal “Lunatics have taken charge of the asylum?”
OT
In the approach to WWIII, will President Obama and his foreign policy expert, the very Iranian Chinese client Valerie Jarrett, ever give a news conference, or will they leave it to the demented comms intern, Joke Buydem?
It is getting rather late, wouldn’t you say?
Recently Gen. Kellog revealed that When Trump backed away from War with Iran – thank god. He directed the military to ut together a list of targets that would hurt Iran without starting a war.
When Iran killed US servicemen and contractors – Soleamani died IMMEDIATELY, The Ayatolahs were told IMMEDIATELY that we had a list of 52 targets and that the list included Iranian leaders. That they could back down and live, or die. Iranian leaders chose to live.
Biden is not up to that. They spent 10 days trying to figure out how to respond and then sent two aircraft – too little too late.
An unclear message.
Biden is playing the same stupid game LBJ tried to play with the NVA. Trump did the equivalent of Nizon sending the B52’s to hanoi – that ended the War.
Except that Trump did not have to risk B52 crews.
Separately – Trump is not going up against Smith – he is going up against Biden, the WH, DOJ, FBI, CIA, Willis, Smith, Bragg, and a long list of politically correct judges.
And he has played his hand into a win-win situation.
“If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.”
Obi-Wan Kenobi
Trump’s enemies have yet to deliver anything close to a lethal blow.
Failure to do so harms them and strengthens Trump.
Jack Smith looks like one of those gun thugs the coal companies used to hire to beat or kill the striking miners. Your soul is in your face as you age.
To people on the other side of the table discretion including mal justice, as is very prevelant, is a ‘bit’ more of an issue than “may consider”.
According to the BBC, Smith applied for a gag order to avoid “prejudice” to “participants including prosecutors, jurors and staff.” BBC 10/26/22. Smith is only worried about ” jurors”. Prosecutors and staff are already firmly dedicated to convicting Trump any criticism of them by Trump w noill only harden their prejudice against him. Smith’s fear is that their may be a potential juror who is not prejudiced already against Trump. So while the Defendant is silenced, his persecutors in the DOJ and media will be free to blacken his reputation, including by anonymous leaks. Democrats want to rig this show trial just as they rigged the 2020 Presidential election.
As normal, Turley leaves out key facts. The gag order clearly says:
“This Order shall not be construed to prohibit Defendant from making statements criticizing the government generally, including the current administration or the Department of Justice; statements asserting that Defendant is innocent of the charges against him, or that his prosecution is politically motivated; or statements criticizing the campaign platforms or policies of Defendant’s current political rivals, such as former Vice President Pence.”
The gag order only applies to attacks on court personnel, and witnesses in regards to this case. This is quite reasonable. Trump should not get special treatment.
Anonymous, when the ACLU makes a statement about abortion your all in but when the ACLU says that gagging Trump is unconstitutional you won’t hear a word they have to say. So please tell us on what basis do you say that the ACLU is in error other than that you as usual are biased in your assessment of the facts. To you the ACLU is credible one day and the next day it’s not. I understand, it’s hard to keep it all straight in your brain.
ROFL. When the ACLU makes a statement about abortion, YOU won’t hear a word they have to say, but when the ACLU says that gagging Trump is unconstitutional, you’re all in. So please tell us on what basis do you say that the ACLU is in error other than that YOU as usual are biased in your assessment of the facts. To you the ACLU is credible one day and the next day it’s not. I understand, it’s hard to keep it all straight in YOUR brain.
The ACLU is more concerned about the wording of the order. It does not oppose the idea of a gag order. It does not oppose the gag order issued by judge Engoron which is similar to Chutkan.
It is unconstitutional to restrict people from criticizing the government – generally or specifically.
One of the problems with the majority of court orders of these types is that:
The court has substantial control of what is done INSIDE THE COURT. Lawyers, witnesses, etc. can defame others in court and court filings and the only remedy is WITH THE COURT.
But statements made outside of court procedings are out fo the doman of the court. Trump or anyone is free to criticize whoever within the government they wish – including court employees.
The prosecution can use those statements in evidence in front of a jury if that is useful, and the court employee can sue for defamation.
But the Judge has no business in the speech fo defendants outside of court.
I would further state that even inside of court – short of maintaining order and controlling time. the court has no business constraining the specific speech of the defendant or their lawyers.
If a defendant wishes to spend their defense claiming twinkies made them do it, or trying to sell a jury a jihad justification – LET THEM.
Defendants must be free to verbally attack the government in anyway they choose inside and outside the courtroom.
This is not about Trump – it is about ANY defendant.
The good news about the Trump cases is that the courts have overstepped even the current bad law on this and maybe appellate courts will move the line closer to where it ought to be.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Legally, their opinion matters and yours does not.
You forget that defendants who are under the court’s jurisdiction even outside of the court when they are released on bail according to bail conditions or terms.
If the rhetoric or statements are deliberate attempts to foul court proceedings and influence potential jurors. A targeted gag order is indeed constitutional. The good news is the courts can adjust their gag orders or move trial to an earlier date.
“But the Judge has no business in the speech fo defendants outside of court.”
Judges have a lot of power setting limits on criminal defendants. They can set conditions of release pending trial. Let’s not forget that defendants have the choice whether to agree or not on the conditions.
Trump is free to attack and criticize the government, judges and the court in general. The gag order don’t prevent him from shooting his mouth. The line is drawn at attacking court staff, witnesses, and juries. This is the scope of the gag orders and they are constitutional. Free speech is not absolute. Neither is the right to attack court staff, witnesses, and juries.
It is irrelevant whether it is reasonable. It is unconstitutional.
If Trump defames you – you can go file a lawsuit and seek damages.
This is not the business of THIS court.
This is called PRIOR RESTRAINT – there is no “reasonableness exception to to government PRIOR RESTRAINT actions that violate the first amendment.
I know this is hard for left wing nuts to understand – but a right is something that people are free to do even if the majority think it is unreasonable for them to do so.
Pro Hamas protesters are lunatics and completely unreasonable and clueless. They are overwhelmingly at odds with the views of the majority of the country.
Yet, they have the right to protest – as unreasonable as that is.
“It is irrelevant whether it is reasonable. It is unconstitutional.
If Trump defames you – you can go file a lawsuit and seek damages.
This is not the business of THIS court.”
It is if trump attacking court staff under a judge’s supervision and responsibility. It’s not unconstitutional at all. You haven’t cited any case law showing it’s unconstitutional. The majority of defendants in any court of law wouldn’t be afforded the liberty to denigrate or attack judges and court staff and claim freedom of speech. They would be held in contempt and thrown in jail. Trump can be thrown in jail for violating the conditions of his release if they include attacks on court staff, witnesses, or juries.
“This is called PRIOR RESTRAINT – there is no “reasonableness exception to to government PRIOR RESTRAINT actions that violate the first amendment.”
This is not prior restraint. None of the courts issued gag orders prior to during arraignments. Trump and everyone in his legal team were not gagged until Trump started to attack court staff and witnesses. He was warned multiple times and then he was issued a gag order. So your argument of prior restraint is irrelevant.
“I know this is hard for left wing nuts to understand – but a right is something that people are free to do even if the majority think it is unreasonable for them to do so.”
No, what if hard for you to understand is that Trump is a criminal defendant he has limited rights. He’s under the jurisdiction of the judicial system. Your rights can be limited by the government, especially when you’re under criminal indictment.
Rein in? Are you kidding! Smith is doing his bidding. Garland is a thug and probably the most despicable AG in modern history. he is a traitor to American democracy and should be treated as one
Are you saying that because Trump is saying it? Trump is the one making those claims. And here you are parroting the same rhetoric. This is exactly why a gag order, a narrow one is necessary. Because his followers are bound to harass and intimidate on his behalf and influence any potential jury before trial even starts. His aim is to poison the jury pool long before trial. It takes just one juror to avoid conviction.
Sorry Anonymous. You may not be able to think for yourself and need to follow exactly what the Dem rulebook decides you should do and say but many of us recognize that Garland has been not only inept but targeted in his political actions. We saw him attack and pursue parents and people of faith with unconstitutional actions, while ignoring the violence in the ciites and at our Border, as he follows the Dem line. We have heard him testify multiple times and it’s clear that he is incapable of representing even a thread on Lady Liberty’s dress. He’s a political hack and does not serve the American people. Who cares what Trump says? Conservatives think on their own and don’t bow to the handbook the way Democrats do
“Who cares what Trump says? Conservatives think on their own and don’t bow to the handbook the way Democrats do”
They are following the law. It matters what trump says he’s trying to intervene and foul court proceedings to his benefit. Courts have the authority to control and prevent that.
Do you not believe that so many leaks from Jack Smith’s OSC are not also intended to influence the jury pool and foul court proceedings to his benefit?
Right -Trump and his suppoorters are going to harrass Juries in Atlanta, NYC and DC ?
Go Jussie Go !
There is already evidence of Trump supporters doxxing grand jury members and harassing them.
Trump attacked grand juries and their members. It’s already happened.
Talk, Talk, and more talk, ATS.
Tell us what he said you believe was the worst, then document it. Without some documentation, your reputation tells us you are lying.
He sometimes has to apologize, so he may have said some things even I don’t appreciate. However, the level of his “attacks” is minuscule compared to what we are seeing from the left and does not endanger the people you are talking about more than you find acceptable coming from the left.
If these mythical DC Trump supporters actually engage in illegal actions – arrest them.
The constitution does NOT allow prior restraint of speech to preclude hypothetical harms. That claim is DOA.
I would note that Pro-Palestiniam protestors violentlyh attempted to disrupt congress a few weeks ago.
You do not seem to grasp that the right to free speech is bidirectional. Left or right it is the same.
Trump is as entitled to have protestors attempt to influence congress and Pro-Hamas student groups.
Trump is entitled to speak out about the abuses of his various illegitimate prosecutions – mostly for the very free speech that pro-palestinian protestors engaged in,
The RIGHT answer would be for Smith and Willis to drop these stupid and unconstitutional cases.
But playing chicken with Trump over unconstitutional gag orders is an idiotic idea.
Not merely because it is unconstitutional.
But because it is wrong., it is bad, it is hypocritical and it throoughly undermines your case, your values, your trust and your credibility.
So GO FOR IT.
Lets See Erogan bum the fines to $1M – see what that does to Trump polls, to Trump donations ?
Or lock Trump up ?
You do not seem to understand – Trump WANTS you to make a martyr out of him, when you do so YOU LOSE.
The more Smith Chutkan, Erogan Willis. James try desparate measures to reign trump in the weaker they look and the stronger Trump becomes and the more likely he wins on appeal – if not sooner.
So GO FOR IT.
Go Jussie Go !
John B. Say, your arguments on prior restraint are not relevant here. Trump has been warned repeatedly about his rhetoric and false claims before any gag orders were issued.
The judges gave trump ample warnings which he chose to ignore. Now they issued extremely narrow gag orders and Trump has managed to violate one twice. I’m sure Trump want to be seen as a martyr but it seems judge Chutkan is seriously considering allowing live tv feeds on her court and has asked Trump if he agrees with it. It will show the public all the evidnce against trump and show all the lying trump engages in. That won’t stop the judge from issuing a gag order specifically tailored to protect her staff and any jurors.
More News: Jack Smith keeps going after Trump. People want to know why?
“Georgia election case goes to trial over mass voter challenge as cases mount
Fair Fight asks the court to find that True the Vote violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act and to bar the organization from future operations in Georgia.”
News: Merritt Garland is missing in action while Trump is denied free speech.
“FBI had more than 40 sources informing on possible criminal activity involving Bidens, Grassley says
Grassley makes bombshell revelation in new letter, alleging avenues of inquiry were shut down.”
Lol! Possible. It’s always “possible”, “maybe”, “allegedly”. Meaning they don’t have clear evidence still.
The evidence is in the money transfers between the Biden family, including CHILDREN, and the house purchases and the Bidens’ own texts indicating they were profiting off of the BIG (demented) GUY.
Evidence of what? Money transfers are legal. Making a profit is not a crime. What is the crime here? All there is are allegations and accusations but no evidence of wrongdoing or criminal activity. Nothing you posted is illegal.
Correct, the reports are not incontrovertible proof of Biden corruption.
But they are by definition EVIDENCE.
And they are proof that FBI/DOJ FAILED to investigate 40 reports from sources that the FBI had already assessed as CREDIBLE.
That smells like the coverup that it is.
But more importantly they are PART of the EVIDENCE that DOJ/FBI actually OBSTRUCTED the investigation of the Bidens.
We are finding out that FBI agents were required to PRECLEAR everything involving the Biden’s with higher ups, and that that requests were routinely denied.
All this is just confirming the testimony of agents that no investigation at the FBI has EVER been handled this way before.
This is part of why I have repeatedly argued that the GOP has made a tacticle mistake starting the impeachment process with Biden.
It is going to be nearly politically impossible for the GOP to impeach anyone, much less get the senate to remove them.
House Republicans could Catch Biden aparatich’s on video raping babies and they would not get one democratic vote to impeach them.
The political reality is that the current purpose of house actions is purely political – because democrats will not allow any meaningful consequences to occur.
Therefore Republicans should go after the largest target – and that is Garland – Not Biden. NEarly every single aspect of the Biden imperachment inquiry would be relevant to a Garland inquiry – but the converse is not true There are myriads of acts of misconduct by this DOJ and FBI that are likely not possible to link to the WH – even if they actually originated there.
Entire Democratic Party weaponized federal law enforcement and other agencies against Trump. They are failing.
“2024 Democratic presidential candidate Dean Phillips says he’s worried Biden may lose to Trump
“Right now, if this election was held today, President Biden would lose,” Phillips said during an NBC interview.”
News: IRS tried to get Trump. It failed.
“Amid security missteps, IRS under scrutiny as agency prepares for influx of cash, employees
A recent Congressional watchdog report found problems with the IRS’s handling of sensitive taxpayer information.”
Is this a NEW report of the IRS violating the law regarding tax payer information – or a rehash of the older and extremely egregious one that I beleive involved illegally supplying tax information on dozens of people – mostly republicans.
News: DOJ keeps going after Trump.
“Federal prosecutors spied on Congress in search for leaks, now DOJ is being investigated for it
Numerous House, Senate investigators belatedly alerted their phone records subpoenaed dating to 2017, DOJ inspector general opens inquiry.”
News: Judge continues going after Trump.
“Unlikely bedfellows: ACLU backs Trump in opposing judge’s gag order in criminal case
“Trump retains a First Amendment right to speak, and the rest of us retain a right to hear what he has to say,” the brief states.”
I have not searched for the caselaw, but there is purportedly Supreme Court cases that have already deprived Judges the powers that Engron is excercising.
Purportedly? Meaning, you can’t support your argument.
Which cases are those? You say gag orders are unconstitutional, but you can’t show any Supreme Court rulings supporting that claim. You’re assuming.
News: Jack Smith continues to prosecute Trump.
“NJ election fraud: New charges brought against two Democrats over mail-in ballots, registrations
The mail-in ballot election fraud case against Paterson City Council President Alex Mendez has been ongoing for more than three years.”
I do not know if this was the same case – but in Newark in a democratic primary in 2020 there were over 250,000 fraudulent mailing ballots found by a democratic judge in a democratic primary.
Yet the rest of us are supposed to beleive there were not 45,000 fraudulent mailin ballots in 3 entire states ?
“Mounting financial losses in the wind industry over the last few months are taking a toll on the Biden administration’s clean energy drive. Despite the billions in subsidies that came down the pipeline in 2022 before the Inflation Reduction gave away even more money, energy experts don’t expect that the need for more money will deter the nationwide momentum to build more wind and solar farms.”
I have no problems with wind and solar. But it is an absolute requirement that government must stay out of those and the economy as a whole.
We will not get wise decisions regardless of the domain once we subsidize something.
We can look at the history of govenrment subsidizing things and find universal failure.
During the Obama administration a study came out that demonstrated that Federal Jobs training programs actually DECREASED the ability of participants to get jobs.
When the good professor refers to Smith’s “unrelenting effort to gag” Trump, I interpret that as Smith’s unrelenting effort “to bag” Trump. Such a zealous effort, by hook or by crook, to make Trump a trophy on his wall, instead of being concerned about looking into Biden’s equivocal Hx.
lin
Smith is a prosecutor. It’s literally his job. Why is that so hard for most to comprehend? It’s how our Justice system works. Prosecutors have a lot of power.
“Smith is a prosecutor…”
Duhhhhh.
Are you displaying naivety or partisan defense?
Just pointing out a simple fact. It seems you don’t understand what the word means.
His job is to enforce the law and follow the constitution. It is not to prosecute anyone he wants for anything he wants and make up the law and constitution as he goes.
Democrats understand that Trump has a chance to win in November. They also know the Senate map is against them in 2024, and that Republicans could well keep the House (notwithstanding the efforts of leftist judges to redistrict them out). Accordingly, their woke, climate change obsessed, high spending domestic agenda, and failed border and foreign policies, could be ended.
The easiest way for them to prevent this is to cripple Trump through law suits that tie him up in court, limit his speech and send him to jail, either for contempt or upon conviction. That is what they are doing. They are also engaged in lawfare to keep him off the ballot through a novel interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Perhaps the Supreme Court will be able to intervene in time, but that is not a sure thing.
We are witnessing the destruction of this republic under the rubric of protecting “our democracy,” meaning the implementation of Democratic policies without regard to the voters.
While I agree with your post – thus far this is not working. Trump gains support with each Biden disaster, and with each effort to handcuff him.
The left is playing a game of chicken with Trump – one that is extremely likely to explode in their faces.
One of the huge problems democrats have is that even if they WIN on some of these issues – they LOSE.
Lets assume Trump continues to violate these gag orders. The court can escalate fines – but the campaign value of the publicity is greater than the fine.
Lets say the court astronomically escalates the fines – that makes the court look really bad and assures a quick appeal and loss.
Lets say the court throws Trump in jail. Nothing could fan the fires more than that. The onlything more damaging to democrats that Trump on the campaign trail would be Trump in jail.
Trump is playing chicken with a bunch of judges, and with DOJ and the Biden administration – that does not yet seem to grasp THEY CAN NOT WIN.
Andrew MacCarthy – not a Trump supporter recently wrote that rather than a show of strength the GA plea deals are a show of weakness.
Willis has dropped all serious charges in return to pleas to essentially nothing. no jail time, little or no probation, and vague agreement to cooperate.
Willis has retained NO LEVERAGE on the parties she has plead. She can not increase the charges if Ellis or Chesboro or Powell do not testify as she hopes.
Further her pleas undermine the RICO charge. She actually risks getting the RICO charges dismissed because her plea deals establish there is no conspiracy.
Further people are looking at what these people are pleading to and those not totally in the tank are asking – why is this even a crime ?
The James and Bragg cases in NY were garbage from the start and James’s case is completely falling apart. Poeple understand that MAL is worth more than 28M that assessment and apraisal are not the same thing and that a smaller undeveloped property down the road is being offered for $1B
And finally that no one is defrauded if Trump exagerates his wealth.
People KNOW intuitively what a crime is, and what is not.
Lesley Macadoo Gordon also has a great article in the Federalist on the Willis plea deals.
Smith has an unrelentingly bad track record.
The left is currently relying on the 9-0 precident set in the McDonald case – where an overzealous prosecutor tried to manufacture bribery out of legal acts
Who was that overzealous prosecutor – Jack Smith.
Jack Smith’s bad case resulted in the case law that got menendez off the first time.
Pass a banana…no, the elephant can peel it for herself.
I promised I would do nothing to get the nomination secured, so when my political opponents are massacred, I smirk and say I know nothing, as promised. I am the most powerful jew on the planet. I make my people proud.